Choy Lay Fut versus Wing Chun?

[straightblast5]

I haven't posted here in quite a while, but after skimming more than one thread regarding the topic of Choy Lay Fut vs. Wing Chun while browsing the forum I felt the urge to offer my opinion on the subject of "style vs. style" here. Having been exposed quite extensively to both the Fong Yuk Shu lineage of CLF and Wong Shun Leung’s method of VT and having some practical experience in other methods of combat, I find rather than debating on what method is "better", it is more efficient to understand whatever method one is studying by scrutinizing the method's strategies in reaching the (imho) "universal" goal of incapacitating an opponent. Different approaches to the same goal do not necessarily make one approach better than another. Using different approaches and strategies to attack an opponent requires different methods of power generation to back up the different structures of each method’s specific attacks. Rather than treating each “style” of fighting as a pseudo-religion (where faith is more important than logic), one is better served by scrutinizing a method’s approach to combat by means of their specific strategies and concepts through realistic training and critical reasoning.

The Choy Lay Fut method uses a wider base and generates power for its circular strikes from the planting of the foot opposite to the fist attack and the torque generated by the shift (mainly but not exclusively) in the hips, waist, and shoulders. Moving the pivot (a point around which torque is generated) though manipulating body structure (i.e. stance) will also manipulate the lines and angles from which your attack can travel to your intended target. The position of the fist in relation to the pivot in this type of attack results in greater impact, though it tends to leave the practitioner somewhat vulnerable to more direct counter-attacks, which is why a CLF practitioner is taught to set up the attack with a more direct one (this often done through the use of a ‘Chop Chue’ - a technique similar in use to a lead jab in boxing) and the use of combinations to attack the target from different angles and lines in direct succession, plus using specific methods of entry.

The following videos illustrate how Choy Lay Fut is practiced and incorporated into SanDa at my family’s martial arts academy in Chicago (demonstrated by my kung fu brother). Incorporated into SanDa or not, the lines, angles, and specific CLF structures should be immediately recognizable by practitioners of CLF from any branch or lineage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGd4nZIMsFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvaGRDkBCec

Once understood, concepts and techniques of any method should be drilled under progressively greater pressure.

The following video shows a sparring drill (done by my CLF kung-fu brothers at my family's martial arts academy in Chicago) focusing on moving in and out of range and using the ‘Chop Chue’ to attack and to set up further attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2orHZClUUs

The following videos illustrate how Wing Chun practitioners (as practiced by myself and my students) drills the concepts of directness in attack and efficiency in motion thru ‘chi-sau’ - a drill specific to the structure and strategy of the Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) method. The Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) method uses a relatively narrower base and structure that proposes the use of linear attacks toward an opponent’s center of gravity employing the most direct line and acute angle possible as the current combat situation dictates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhLd3PPCSdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEsRyWuqDMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzienY-LRJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD-LN9kNA7s

The following is a 2-round sparring session between an intermediate level CLF student and an intermediate level VT student at my family’s academy. Though by no means perfect, I believe the practitioners of both methods were, at several points in the practice session, able to successfully assert the concepts and strategies that they have practiced respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6BxUFlx1ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAdOaCLBQk

From what I’ve been taught and what I have discovered through practical experience, differences in methodology don’t necessarily equal to a method being “better or worse” than another, but it really amounts to how well educated the practitioner is in his/her preferred method of combat. Thus, the focus should never really be how one should fight any other specific method (though having true working knowledge of your opponent’s preferred fighting method will offer an advantage, it is often difficult to foresee your opponent’s preferred fighting method in advance), it is far more efficient to fully educate yourself on your chosen method of combat’s most suited range and devise practical ways (from the method’s core combat strategies and concepts) to deal with attacks and strategies from all possible ranges.

Just sharing my thoughts.:)

Philip Ng

[Violent Designs]

Well, to learn how the other system "works" you have to study it for yourself. Not offer a fake imitation of that style, and throw it at others and yourself. That is not a true representation.

[Shaolindynasty]

it is far more efficient to fully educate yourself on your chosen method of combat’s most suited range and devise practical ways (from the method’s core combat strategies and concepts) to deal with attacks and strategies from all possible ranges


This is something that would be of benifit for many to consider before they begin training and adopting other methods than the ones they currently study.

[sihing]

If you watch the 2 round sparring vids, you see the major problem with VT people, their stuck in static stances, using the short methods from far away (black guy with no shirt), the other guy (white guy with shirt, not sure if he's using CLF or not??), is fighting with long range set up from long range and low and behold it works, lol.

My advice to black guy, forget about your man/wu sau guard/square set up, adapt a more traditional boxing type set up, jab from the outside, secure the shorter range and use your VT tools that you obviously have. Your partner is obviously aware of the VT tactics, and is staying just outside your range if you stay in the frame, drop it, use longer range tactics then come in.

In the end, like said in the OT, it's up to the individual, training only goes so far, some are just better fighters, some better technicians, some better teachers.

James

[jo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6BxUFlx1ZE

GRAB HIS FINGERS. TWIST. GAME OVER.

-jo

[straightblast5]

Well, to learn how the other system "works" you have to study it for yourself.

agreed, but many martial arts "systems" or methods share certain universal combat concepts based upon the system's preferred range due to the fact that there really is a finite way to successfully fight with 2 hands and 2 feet. Cross-training with someone who truly understands their preferred fighting method's strategies will definately widen one's perspective on the different types of strategies out there, but I feel its more important to understand certain universal combat concepts and particular strategies for each possible range and focus on using what you know best to deal with the current combat situation.


Not offer a fake imitation of that style, and throw it at others and yourself. That is not a true representation.

agreed.

[Violent Designs]

agreed, but many martial arts "systems" or methods share certain universal combat concepts based upon the system's preferred range due to the fact that there really is a finite way to successfully fight with 2 hands and 2 feet. Cross-training with someone who truly understands their preferred fighting method's strategies will definately widen one's perspective on the different types of strategies out there, but I feel its more important to understand certain universal combat concepts and particular strategies for each possible range and focus on using what you know best to deal with the current combat situation.



Ultimately, I think that as far as individual skills go, we can only perform as "human being."

For learning purposes, we need a proper "system" and a "curriculum"

I prefer dividing up the system like MMA, we focus on "long-range, mid-range, close-range, clinch-range, then ground-fighting." You can also add "throw" as separate I think, but that is performed in clinching/grappling range.

CLF's strategy prefer to dictate and dominate the "middle range" while WCK prefer to dictate the "short-range" but I think just before "clinch-range." It is difficult for me to get in to "grappling range" on one good friend of mine who study WCK (he also posts here). Granted, he outweighs me by about 30 lbs or so, but still, I think this is what WCK should excel at. Both repelling, and containing within that range. My experience with WCK has also had many positives, not just negative like some people think.

I think some people prefer to call it "trapping range" also.

CLF needs distance to generate power and momentum. This is why we must learn close range fighting, infighting boxing, or clinching and grappling, shuai jiao, etc. It is also to keep ourselves "away" from the range we do not prefer.

[straightblast5]

If you watch the 2 round sparring vids, you see the major problem with VT people, their stuck in static stances, using the short methods from far away (black guy with no shirt), the other guy (white guy with shirt, not sure if he's using CLF or not??), is fighting with long range set up from long range and low and behold it works, lol.

My advice to black guy, forget about your man/wu sau guard/square set up, adapt a more traditional boxing type set up, jab from the outside, secure the shorter range and use your VT tools that you obviously have. Your partner is obviously aware of the VT tactics, and is staying just outside your range if you stay in the frame, drop it, use longer range tactics then come in.

In the end, like said in the OT, it's up to the individual, training only goes so far, some are just better fighters, some better technicians, some better teachers.

James

Thank you for your input, your advice is definitely noted. However, as my Sifu Wong Shun Leung had stated from his experiences (and I find this to be true through my own experiences also), it is best not to throw any attacks until your opponent is within one step (in other words, within reach of the Ving Tsun practitioner). If your opponent wishes to strike at you he has to get within striking range as well. And several times in the session I posted above one can see the VT practitioner intercept the CLF practitioner while he was in range to unload a series of strikes that would in all likelihood incapacitate or severely injure his opponent if not for the safety equipment (and obviously, vice versa).

Just as 'chi-sau' is a drill to improve attributes and proper VT structure for a real fight rather than the exercise being a real fighting situation itself, a sparring session is similar in that its purpose is to train attributes and to assert the concepts and principles that one has previously learned under controlled pressure, which should not be mistaken as the exact chain of events that happens in the chaos of a real combat encounter.

It is also interesting that you were able to discern the CLF's fighter's strategy of level changing and setting up his attacks with his 'chop chue' (as stated in my first post) by observation. Your accurate observation is probably based on your knowledge of what happens in particular ranges and certain universal combat principles that you can apply when you practice (rather than having to learn CLF itself to make that observation). This, in a way, reinforces my point that it is far more efficient to fully educate yourself on your chosen method of combat’s most suited range and devise practical ways (from the method’s core combat strategies and concepts) to deal with attacks and strategies from all possible ranges.

Thanks again for the input and discussion.

[Violent Designs]

Philip -

I think one important thing to note, and while I do agree with what you said, it is still vital to eventually "experience" the range or position you are not comfortable with.

We can theorize and strategize with our system's (in this case CLF) preferred concept and techniques. But thinking is different from doing, and doing with another CLF guy when you want to train against say short-fist style strategy, or Muay Thai style strategy who is attempting to emulate, versus the real thing.

But you are spot on, when we DO test ourselves against things alien to us, we should be applying attack and counterattack from within our chosen method, first and foremost.

[straightblast5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6BxUFlx1ZE

GRAB HIS FINGERS. TWIST. GAME OVER.

-jo

sometimes it is that easy, but for the times that it's not, it's best to educate yourself on what happens when "game over" doesn't happen as easily as you might have imagined.

[straightblast5]

Philip -

I think one important thing to note, and while I do agree with what you said, it is still vital to eventually "experience" the range or position you are not comfortable with.

We can theorize and strategize with our system's (in this case CLF) preferred concept and techniques. But thinking is different from doing, and doing with another CLF guy when you want to train against say short-fist style strategy, or Muay Thai style strategy who is attempting to emulate, versus the real thing.

But you are spot on, when we DO test ourselves against things alien to us, we should be applying attack and counterattack from within our chosen method, first and foremost.

I completely agree. Thank you for your input and discussion.

[Hendrik]

For me,

I think CLF is a much better training compare with most VT today.
CLF is also much more practical and have the body train well.

VT is not everyone's game at 1850. it is an art for advance player when an inch is too much to loose. it is an art playing with momentum after one has a good foundation.

I personally think that linear, center line, chain punch stuff like in the movie is an invention of Ip Man suit for the Hong Kong period of VT development.

real life has no shape or form, as it says strike could be deliver from any joints and distance unbounded by shape/form. center line, chain punch, forward intention.... are shape and form which is the AID of the training but not the result of the training. Trying to fight like the AID of the training is a kiss of death in real life -- meaning can only handle thing in a specific way and blind in the rest ways.


People say, VT has no form, no dragon, no tiger, but very human and flow. Well, that is not true. those YJKYM those trade mark chain punch those bong sau.... those are form and very fix form.

Again, the true no form is " stike could be deliver from any joints and distance unbounded by shape/form" comes accept goes return......
VT is just a concept applicable for advance players can be in any style/system.



having train in VT and some CLF, for me today, my view is they are just different way of playing with momentum. both are good. my goal is " stike could be deliver from any joints and distance unbounded by shape/form" the rest is excessive.

[TenTigers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6BxUFlx1ZE

GRAB HIS FINGERS. TWIST. GAME OVER.

-jo
aw, c'mon jo. you know not all WCK players hold their hands out there like that....
from what I hear, certain WCK Sifus teach their mon sau closer in, specifically from their dealings with other certain CLF guys.

[sihing]

Thank you for your input, your advice is definitely noted. However, as my Sifu Wong Shun Leung had stated from his experiences (and I find this to be true through my own experiences also), it is best not to throw any attacks until your opponent is within one step (in other words, within reach of the Ving Tsun practitioner). If your opponent wishes to strike at you he has to get within striking range as well. And several times in the session I posted above one can see the VT practitioner intercept the CLF practitioner while he was in range to unload a series of strikes that would in all likelihood incapacitate or severely injure his opponent if not for the safety equipment (and obviously, vice versa).

Just as 'chi-sau' is a drill to improve attributes and proper VT structure for a real fight rather than the exercise being a real fighting situation itself, a sparring session is similar in that its purpose is to train attributes and to assert the concepts and principles that one has previously learned under controlled pressure, which should not be mistaken as the exact chain of events that happens in the chaos of a real combat encounter.

It is also interesting that you were able to discern the CLF's fighter's strategy of level changing and setting up his attacks with his 'chop chue' (as stated in my first post) by observation. Your accurate observation is probably based on your knowledge of what happens in particular ranges and certain universal combat principles that you can apply when you practice (rather than having to learn CLF itself to make that observation). This, in a way, reinforces my point that it is far more efficient to fully educate yourself on your chosen method of combat’s most suited range and devise practical ways (from the method’s core combat strategies and concepts) to deal with attacks and strategies from all possible ranges.

Thanks again for the input and discussion.

Hi Phillip,

I teach/train WSLVT as well. My favorite quote of WSL was "Don't be a slave to the system", that tells me allot. Since hearing that and having the ability to train in his system, I've come to realize that VT is just about training, creating good habits, correcting mistakes, building structure and mechanics. The vast majority of the training is two man drills with prolonged contact, anything outside of that for me is just training timing, distancing and perception, so for me the sparring in those vids is outside of the VT training IMO.

Just so you know, I wasn't knocking the VT guys performance, he had great punches, structure, was fast and powerful, it is just the timing of it all, but if that was something specific being worked on then I can see your points.

To me it's all about being natural, the training has to effect your natural responses, make things tighter, more accurate and powerful. I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man:)

James

[Phil Redmond]

I haven't posted here in quite a while, but after skimming more than one thread regarding the topic of Choy Lay Fut vs. Wing Chun while browsing the forum I felt the urge to offer my opinion on the subject of "style vs. style" here. Having been exposed quite extensively to both the Fong Yuk Shu lineage of CLF and Wong Shun Leung’s method of VT and having some practical experience in other methods of combat, I find rather than debating on what method is "better", it is more efficient to understand whatever method one is studying by scrutinizing the method's strategies in reaching the (imho) "universal" goal of incapacitating an opponent. Different approaches to the same goal do not necessarily make one approach better than another. Using different approaches and strategies to attack an opponent requires different methods of power generation to back up the different structures of each method’s specific attacks. Rather than treating each “style” of fighting as a pseudo-religion (where faith is more important than logic), one is better served by scrutinizing a method’s approach to combat by means of their specific strategies and concepts through realistic training and critical reasoning.

The Choy Lay Fut method uses a wider base and generates power for its circular strikes from the planting of the foot opposite to the fist attack and the torque generated by the shift (mainly but not exclusively) in the hips, waist, and shoulders. Moving the pivot (a point around which torque is generated) though manipulating body structure (i.e. stance) will also manipulate the lines and angles from which your attack can travel to your intended target. The position of the fist in relation to the pivot in this type of attack results in greater impact, though it tends to leave the practitioner somewhat vulnerable to more direct counter-attacks, which is why a CLF practitioner is taught to set up the attack with a more direct one (this often done through the use of a ‘Chop Chue’ - a technique similar in use to a lead jab in boxing) and the use of combinations to attack the target from different angles and lines in direct succession, plus using specific methods of entry.

The following videos illustrate how Choy Lay Fut is practiced and incorporated into SanDa at my family’s martial arts academy in Chicago (demonstrated by my kung fu brother). Incorporated into SanDa or not, the lines, angles, and specific CLF structures should be immediately recognizable by practitioners of CLF from any branch or lineage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGd4nZIMsFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvaGRDkBCec

Once understood, concepts and techniques of any method should be drilled under progressively greater pressure.

The following video shows a sparring drill (done by my CLF kung-fu brothers at my family's martial arts academy in Chicago) focusing on moving in and out of range and using the ‘Chop Chue’ to attack and to set up further attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2orHZClUUs

The following videos illustrate how Wing Chun practitioners (as practiced by myself and my students) drills the concepts of directness in attack and efficiency in motion thru ‘chi-sau’ - a drill specific to the structure and strategy of the Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) method. The Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) method uses a relatively narrower base and structure that proposes the use of linear attacks toward an opponent’s center of gravity employing the most direct line and acute angle possible as the current combat situation dictates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhLd3PPCSdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEsRyWuqDMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzienY-LRJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD-LN9kNA7s

The following is a 2-round sparring session between an intermediate level CLF student and an intermediate level VT student at my family’s academy. Though by no means perfect, I believe the practitioners of both methods were, at several points in the practice session, able to successfully assert the concepts and strategies that they have practiced respectively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6BxUFlx1ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAdOaCLBQk

From what I’ve been taught and what I have discovered through practical experience, differences in methodology don’t necessarily equal to a method being “better or worse” than another, but it really amounts to how well educated the practitioner is in his/her preferred method of combat. Thus, the focus should never really be how one should fight any other specific method (though having true working knowledge of your opponent’s preferred fighting method will offer an advantage, it is often difficult to foresee your opponent’s preferred fighting method in advance), it is far more efficient to fully educate yourself on your chosen method of combat’s most suited range and devise practical ways (from the method’s core combat strategies and concepts) to deal with attacks and strategies from all possible ranges.

Just sharing my thoughts.:)

Philip Ng
Good post. Say what I say almost verbatim. Your training reminds me of training "back in the day". Good stuff.
I believe that the individual practitioner makes the fight. But I will say that a good CLF fighter will give the average WC fighter a really hard time. The VT/WC charging in chain punches can be taken advantage of by CLF.

[hskwarrior]

I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man


What you're talking about here is owning your gung fu. It was given to us by our teachers, yet instead of owning it people tend to try n mirror their teacher becoming a carbon copy which wouldn't allow you to express your own individuality. While training under my sifu he used to encourage us to find our own method of usage that suited us best. Not only would we know his way, we'd have our own as well.

[straightblast5]

Hi Phillip,

I teach/train WSLVT as well. My favorite quote of WSL was "Don't be a slave to the system", that tells me allot. Since hearing that and having the ability to train in his system, I've come to realize that VT is just about training, creating good habits, correcting mistakes, building structure and mechanics. The vast majority of the training is two man drills with prolonged contact, anything outside of that for me is just training timing, distancing and perception, so for me the sparring in those vids is outside of the VT training IMO.

Just so you know, I wasn't knocking the VT guys performance, he had great punches, structure, was fast and powerful, it is just the timing of it all, but if that was something specific being worked on then I can see your points.

To me it's all about being natural, the training has to effect your natural responses, make things tighter, more accurate and powerful. I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man:)

James

Greeting James,

You list very valid points.

“Don’t be a slave to the system”, that's one of my favorite quotes as well. Sifu tends to use a particular anecdote regarding one of his challenge matches to help illustrate this idea. His recollection tells that, immediately after the fight, his kung fu brothers berated him for knocking out his opponent with a knee instead of a “proper” Ving Tsun kick. But seemingly unnoticed by his misinformed kung fu brethren, his knee (though not specifically in the curriculum) did follow the VT concept of closest weapon (knee) to the closest target, and most importantly, Sifu won the fight. That's why I try not to accept any idea at face-value and, when possible, I rely on my own practical experiences with VT to illustrate to me that what I’m being taught works for me as well.

While the aforementioned anecdote tells us particular techniques are interchangeable given the situation, certain universal principles remain the same (like closest weapon to closest target). When Sifu explained attacking when you’re "one-step away" (or within striking range) from your opponent, he is describing an entry strategy that he found to work for him (from his personal experiences) while using a very similar Ving Tsun structure that we (of the WSL lineage) use today. If we’re using the structure and concepts that he had passed on to us, this type of entry strategy should probably work for us also. The rhythm it takes to make this entry (that Sifu had proposed) successful takes time to develop (just as the gap-closing strategy from boxing that you advocated in your previous post would also take time to develop successfully), but when it does, I find the method proposed by my Sifu to work for me more often than not. I prefer to close the gap with a standard VT front kick/step as it brings me closer to the opponent with an attack (as the kick is not a passive bridging method) and when it brings me into my prefered range, the nature of the kick puts me in proper VT structure immediately (as my kicking foot either makes contact or steps back onto the ground). Ultimately the method of entry depends on the practitioner’s preference and experience.

I agree with you that being natural is important, and that forcing a technique (just for the sake that it’s ‘Ving Tsun’) when there’s a better way to solve the given problem is counter-productive. With that said, I am still convinced that the Ving Tsun system contains very particular structures, shapes, and strategies that have been developed to best express the concepts and principles within the VT method. I absolutely agree with you that (when genuinely understood) VT principles and practices will definitely make any person “tighter, more accurate, and powerful”, so if I can find an honestly useable strategy within the VT system that I practice to solve a particular problem, I don’t find it necessary to adapt a strategy (from another methodology) while fighting, sparring, and training with VT.

Aside from a few differences in opinion, I feel we share many of the same attitudes towards combat and training VT (as listed in my inital post). Thank you for your positive input and good luck with your training.

Regards,
Philip

[straightblast5]

Good post. Say what I say almost verbatim. Your training reminds me of training "back in the day". Good stuff.
I believe that the individual practitioner makes the fight. But I will say that a good CLF fighter will give the average WC fighter a really hard time. The VT/WC charging in chain punches can be taken advantage of by CLF.

Thank you for your kind words in response to my post.

Regards,
Philip

[Phil Redmond]

. . .I just see too many video's where VT people are trying to display the style, the things they do in training, which creates robots and mechanical movements. If there's no bridge contact, no one should know your a VT man:)

James
So true James. What happens though is when people see clips of our guys fighting there have the "where is the WC? "mindset. They are expecting to see picture perfect, choreographed, kung fu movie, WC techs against a resisting opponent. People who've competed know better. Those who haven't don't.

[Phil Redmond]

Philip Ng
Not that you'd really care but I must say that schools like yours make me proud to be a TCMA. We are looked down upon by many other MAs. Keep up the good work.
Also, you have a great name. Even though you spell it wrong. ;)
Phillip

[YouKnowWho]

The VT/WC charging in chain punches can be taken advantage of by CLF.
Any "straight jab" can be countered by "hook punch" and that's just the general "circular against straight line" principle which may not have anything to do with styles. This is also the Kempo guy's favor move. They like to drop their leading arm down, any incoming straight punch, they like to use "ridge hand (similiar to hook punch)" to couner.

[sihing]

So true James. What happens though is when people see clips of our guys fighting there have the "where is the WC? "mindset. They are expecting to see picture perfect, choreographed, kung fu movie, WC techs against a resisting opponent. People who've competed know better. Those who haven't don't.

This is because allot of people are thinking in a "style" way, that the training is meant to change everything they do or how they move. It does, but not in the sense that one has to be mechanical about it. Bruce Lee said it best, "One must be unnaturally natural or naturally unnatural,,,,to be totally natural is unscientific and unefficient, to be too scientific is to move like a mechancial man, one has to find the happy medium in the middle.." (Pierre Burton interview 72').

Phillip,
The dilemma I have is not being fixed or stuck in a box. If I follow WSL advice to the book, no striking unless within one step distance, I feel stuck in a box. Yes he discovered this tactic due to his fighting experience, I think each of us has to do the same thing. It is not that it is "bad" advice, it is just that there is a time and place for everything. If for e.g. I am just outside that "one step" range, does that mean I cannot strike?? For me if I have an opening I will strike, I may break some VT rules by doing so, but if the opportunity is there, I will take it (all fighting is a gamble, whether I strike with a jab or VT punch, there's no guarantees). Now that doesn't mean that I have to learn another method of striking. I've only ever practiced one MA, Wing Chun (1st TWC, now since 06' WSLVT), but I have been a fan of boxing and can throw a decent jab, it's not that hard to do. When I throw it now, I throw it while coming in slightly, so that the VT structure is essentially kicking in behind it as the distance is narrowed. If it works, great, if not there's a backup plan already in place.
Hope you understand, not trying to say your wrong/I'm right, it's not that simple, just a different way of looking at it. For the most part we're on the same page:)


James

[sihing]

What you're talking about here is owning your gung fu. It was given to us by our teachers, yet instead of owning it people tend to try n mirror their teacher becoming a carbon copy which wouldn't allow you to express your own individuality. While training under my sifu he used to encourage us to find our own method of usage that suited us best. Not only would we know his way, we'd have our own as well.

This is true. No one can give you good kung fu, or VT, one must learn it themselves, thru the training curriculum, then use it themselves thru sparring and actual experience. A teacher/sifu/coach can only guide you, maybe help you complete the process faster by keeping you on track. One only learns by making mistakes, learning from them and going forward.

James

[straightblast5]

Not that you'd really care but I must say that schools like yours make me proud to be a TCMA. We are looked down upon by many other MAs. Keep up the good work.
Also, you have a great name. Even though you spell it wrong. ;)
Phillip

Thank you, I do care and I am very flattered. It has always been my intention to promote the use of practical experience and critical reasoning to discern the efficiency of any combat method. So rather than wasting my time on researching what method is "better", I prefer to objectively discover if what I'm doing serves its intended purpose.

It is my perspective that martial arts are combat methods, not some sort of pseudo-religion where blind faith overwhelms logic. So if practitioners of other methods make uneducated claims about combat methodologies that they know very little about, they are simply limiting themselves and would be better served by spending their time making what they practice work for them.

I'm pretty certain that humans have been fighting each other (for whatever reasons) long before any established combat methodology was developed, so I feel the TMA vs. MMA argument is a misinformed one, as I feel martial artists should train in an intelligent and progressive manner regardless of what method(s) they choose to study (be it BJJ, MT, VT, CLF, etc.).

With that said, even though I feel martial arts should be practiced progressively and intelligently, the martial arts (as per its origins) are not purely an intellectual exercises as the language of combat is ultimately spoken with the hands (and feet).

Thank you for your comment and I look forward to having more discussions like this in the future.

Regards,
Philip

BTW - it seems that there is an extra "L" in your name ;)

[straightblast5]

Hope you understand, not trying to say your wrong/I'm right, it's not that simple, just a different way of looking at it. For the most part we're on the same page:)James

I absolutely understand. Syntactic differences aside, I believe that we're pretty much saying the same thing.

regards,
Philip

[straightblast5]

Also a means of allowing us to express ourselves through physical movement.

I feel martial arts lets us look at ourselves honestly.

That's the category of "more" than raw fighting potential.

Agreed, as I believe "raw fighting potential" is something innate and differs from person to person. However, a well developed fighting methodology (when practiced intelligently) can/will improve a person's "fighting ability" regardless of the level of their innate fighting potential (though of course, that innate potential still does play a significant factor).

And you’re correct, honesty is the key to self-improvement (among other virtues). As skill (of any sort) is not inherited but earned. And a good measuring stick for self-improvement is to see if the person you are today can (through diligent and intelligent training) defeat the person you were the day before.

regards,
Philip

[TenTigers]

Any "straight jab" can be countered by "hook punch" and that's just the general "circular against straight line" principle which may not have anything to do with styles. This is also the Kempo guy's favor move. They like to drop their leading arm down, any incoming straight punch, they like to use "ridge hand (similiar to hook punch)" to couner.
WC Sifu Allen Lee taught a sow choy vs a straight punch as well.
"A circle beats a straight line, and a straight line beats a circle" -this counts for hands as well as footwork, such as when you are cutting off his ring.
-Rik (some people misspell it using a c...)

[Phil Redmond]

Thank you, I do care and I am very flattered.
It has always been my intention to promote the use of practical experience and critical reasoning to discern the efficiency of any combat method. So rather than wasting my time on researching what method is "better", I prefer to objectively discover if what I'm doing serves its intended purpose. . . . . .I Thank you for your comment and I look forward to having more discussions like this in the future.

You're welcome. I have a student in Chicago that has no place to train daily. I'll recommend your school to him. I feel training in a good martial arts school is more important than the style or lineage.



BTW - it seems that there is an extra "L" in your name ;)
Good come back. :)

[extrajoseph]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html

[hskwarrior]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html

The guy in red is Buk Sing Choy Lee Fut.

[Vajramusti]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supposedly wc guy bounces a lot and "reaches" for his punches!!

joy chaudhuri

[Violent Designs]

CLF (red) v WC (white) in one of the old Hong Kong tournaments.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTIwNzIwOTY=.html

Looks strongly to be Tarm Fei Pang lineage possibly.

[lone_walker]

Looks strongly to be Tarm Fei Pang lineage possibly.

The fighter in the red is Tsang Hin Kuen, son of Tsang Chiu Yu. Tsang Chiu Yu trained under Lun Chee.

[Violent Designs]

The fighter in the red is Tsang Hin Kuen, son of Tsang Chiu Yu. Tsang Chiu Yu trained under Lun Chee.

That would have been my other guess. :D